User talk:Fleet Command
Welcome! Welcome to Encyclopedia Hiigara ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our articles - thank you! We all hope you will enjoy creating new content as much as we do and will stay for a longer while. If you would like to learn more about contributing I'd like you to check , and if you are new to editing wikias - check excellent "first steps" guide. If you need any more help you can always ask here or on our . Here you have few helpful and useful links you might want to have: * Policies, especially the Fanon Policy * Community Portal which tracks most recent community events as well as on Encyclopedia itself * - if you would want to write one of these we would be very thankful * is place you can find some nice pictures for your articles * is where you can start browsing the Encyclopedia * You may also want to see your or * And finally: you can always create your user page giving few details about you :) One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. Thanks again for your input. Wish you many great articles! --Zeta1127,89thLegion (talk) 18:03, November 29, 2014 (UTC) edits Your edits go against the agreed standard of article formatting. Please stop changing "Background" to other titles, that is the title standard used here on every other article. You should be using a talkpage instead of making arbitrary edits that go against normal standards. --Sajuuk talk | | Channel 12:22, February 27, 2015 (UTC) :Talkpages don't have any agreed standard and therefore, your point isn't valid. Like I said, the general standard is to use a Background heading for information that pertains to the ship's history. Stating a specific encounter may lead information under the heading to become invalid, so we use a general term "Background" for such things. :And my intent is for talkpages to get more use here. Instead of going into a revert war with a user, make use of the article's talkpage in future to discuss why you think the edit should be written the way you are suggesting (you can find the article talkpage easily by clicking the Talk button next to Edit on an article). That way, the community can weigh into the discussion and form a consensus, instead of constantly flooding the page history with reverts, which doesn't help the wiki overall. :The community will be getting more activity for a while now. So it is important that we discuss issues so that we can make changes to the Manual of Style (which I'm writing at the moment and planning to put into place later today) that suits all sides of the argument. :Thanks for understanding. --Sajuuk talk | | Channel 12:50, February 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Edit warring is the term used when an editor persistently changes back an edit that another editor fixed because it wasn't right. You should be aware that edits don't belong to the user in question but belong to the community. ::When I look at the page history on Ghost Ship, I had to keep changing the edits you were making because they weren't right, which is a definition of "edit warring" (especially as you later decided to say things like "it is misinformation", which is only your opinion). ::In future, use a talkpage if another editor disagrees with an edit that you have made. Constantly going into the page and reverting their edit, without giving a full reason why, is disruptive and not very useful, especially as the edits themselves were against normal standards. --Sajuuk talk | | Channel 12:57, February 27, 2015 (UTC) :::It's entirely dependent on the definition of "Background". To me, background is a section for an overview or historical look at the subject matter in a paraphrased format. We use the section on all mission articles, as well as in some character and ship pages, so that's the agreed standard. It could be called "History", "Background", "Overview" or a range of terms: they all generally mean the same thing (although you could argue that History would be a chronologically dissection ;)) :::I have to go away for a bit, but I will discuss this later in a forum thread, so that we can get the opinions of the community as a whole and work it into the manual of style. :) --Sajuuk talk | | Channel 13:04, February 27, 2015 (UTC)